The case holding that even if the taxpayer interpreted the transfer margin of land as a recognition of special surtax pursuant to the former Regulation of Tax Reduction and Exemption Act because it is difficult to see that there was a trust in lieu of the acquisition margin due to the previous special surtax exemption transitional provisions, it cannot be seen as a retroactive legislation infringing the acquisition right.

If the transfer of land is made after January 1, 1990, the enforcement date of the former Regulation of Tax Reduction and Exemption Act, whether the provisions of the former Corporate Tax Act and the provisions of the former Regulation of Tax Reduction and Exemption Act apply.

The case holding that no additional tax may be imposed on justifiable grounds, such as where it is unreasonable for a taxpayer to be unaware of the principal payment obligation, or it is unreasonable for the party to the obligation to expect the fulfillment of the obligation, etc.

In light of the motive and circumstance leading up to the amendment of the former Regulation of Tax Reduction and Exemption Act (amended by Act No. 4165 of Dec. 30, 1989) and the fact that the transitional provision of corporate tax exemption is not for the purpose of recognizing the right to acquire profits, etc., the amendment of the former Corporate Tax Act (amended by Act No. 4020 of Dec. 26, 1988) to delete the corporate tax exemption provisions and to establish the non-taxation transitional provision at the same time, instead of enacting the former Regulation of Tax Reduction and Exemption Act (amended by Act No. 4020 of Dec. 26, 1988), the amendment of the former Regulation of Tax Reduction and Exemption Act to the effect that the latter provision of the same purport as the non-taxation transitional provision of the former Regulation of Tax Reduction and Exemption Act would lose its effect, and Article 1 and 5(3) of the former Addenda of the Regulation of Tax Reduction and Exemption Act (amended by Act No. 4020 of Dec. 19, 19899) should be interpreted to the same effect.

In a case where the previous amendment of the Corporate Tax Act and the Regulation of Tax Reduction and Exemption Act newly established corporate tax (special surtax) liability due to the amendment of the Corporate Tax Act and the Regulation of Tax Reduction and Exemption Act, but the tax authority, as well as taxpayers, did not report the above tax liability for several years, or did not impose the special surtax. The tax authority knew that there was no conviction that the above tax liability was under the above tax liability, and imposed the additional tax for the remaining taxable years in which the tax authority would have known the position of the upper agency, while imposing the special surtax for some taxable years, the case held that it is unreasonable that the above tax authority failed to report and pay the special surtax on the ground that it was unlawful since it was unreasonable for the above tax authority to impose the special surtax on the taxpayer due to the reason that it was not unreasonable for the above taxpayer to have failed to report and pay the special surtax, in light of the circumstance and background behind the amendment of the Corporate Tax Act to the Corporate Tax Act and the Enforcement Decree of the Tax Reduction and Exemption Control Act, and the contents of the special surtax as amended by the Supreme Court's final interpretation of the above statutory provisions.

Article 59-3(1)14 of the former Corporate Tax Act (amended by Act No. 4020 of Dec. 26, 1988), Article 1, Article 12(1), and Article 16 of the Addenda (amended by Act No. 4020 of Dec. 26, 1988) of the former Corporate Tax Act (amended by Act No. 4020 of Dec. 26, 1988), Article 59-3(2)4 of the former Corporate Tax Act (amended by Act No. 4020 of Dec. 26, 1988), Article 59 subparag. 5 of the former Regulation of Tax Reduction and Exemption Act (amended by Act No. 4165 of Dec. 30, 1989), Article 1, Article 5(1) and (3), Article 19-3(1) of the latter (amended by Act No. 4020 of Dec. 26, 1988), the latter part of the Regulation of Tax Reduction and Exemption Act (amended by Act No. 1912)

Articles 1, 12(1), and 16 of the former Corporate Tax Act (amended by Act No. 4020 of Dec. 26, 198), Article 59-3(1)14 of the former Corporate Tax Act (amended by Act No. 4020 of Dec. 26, 198), Article 59-3(2)4 of the former Corporate Tax Act (amended by Act No. 4020 of Dec. 26, 198) (amended by Act No. 4020 of Dec. 26, 198), Article 41(1)2 of the former Corporate Tax Act (amended by Act No. 4282 of Dec. 31, 1990), Article 59(2)5 of the former Regulation of Tax Reduction and Exemption Act (amended by Act No. 4165 of Dec. 30, 198), Article 12(1)4 of the latter part of the former Corporate Tax Act (amended by Act No. 5197(amended by Act No. 195 of Dec. 197, 197)

Supreme Court Decision 98Du17685 delivered on August 22, 2000 (Gong2000Ha, 2025) and Supreme Court Decision 99Du3324 Delivered on September 14, 2001 (Gong2001Ha, 2273)

Supreme Court Decision

Supreme Court Decision 2002Du66 Delivered on August 23, 2002

아래 사실은 당사자 사이에 다툼이 없거나, 갑 제1 내지 3, 9, 10호증, 을 제6호증, 을 제7호증의 1, 2, 을 제8호증의 1 내지 7, 을 제9호증, 을 제10호증의 1, 2, 을 제11호증의 1 내지 6, 을 제12호증, 을 제13호증의 1, 2, 을 제14호증의 1 내지 6, 을 제15호증의 1, 2, 을 제16호증의 각 기재와 환송 전후의 당심 증인 김ㅇㅇ, 환송 후 당심 증인 이ㅇㅇ의 각 증언에 변론의 전취지를 종합하여 인정할 수 있다.

A. The Plaintiff’s status, the implementation of the industrial base development project, and the transfer of land

(1) The Plaintiff, a corporation established under the Korea Water Resources Corporation Act on July 1, 198, comprehensively succeeds to all the property, rights and obligations of the Industrial Base Development Corporation pursuant to Article 4(1) of the Addenda of the same Act, and the said Industrial Base Development Corporation was designated as an executor of the industrial base development project pursuant to Article 5 of the Industrial Base Development Promotion Act (amended by Act No. 2657 of Dec. 24, 197 and repealed by Act No. 4216 of Jan. 13, 1990) with respect to eight districts, including the half-month district designated as the industrial base development district before December 31, 198, and operated the said industrial base development project.

“(2) The Plaintiff: (a) transferred the 6,362,968.4 square meters of land created within the said district during the period from January 1, 1990 to December 31, 1990; and (b) from January 1, 1991 to December 31, 1991, the 4,814,318.7 square meters of land created within the said district during the period from January 1, 1991 to December 31, 1991; and (c) from January 1, 1992 to December 31, 1992, the 2,630,464 square meters of land during the period from January 1, 199 to December 31, 192; and (d) transferred the 1,69,789 square meters of land during the said project district during the period from January 1, 193 to December 31, 1993.”

"(1) 원고는 1991. 3. 30. 피고에게 1990 사업연도(1990. 1. 1.〜1990. 12. 31.) 법인세 과세표준 및 세액을 신고할 때에 위 사업연도 중 토지의 양도로 인한 법인세 특별부가세(이하특별부가세'라 한다) 산정의 과세표준이 되는 양도차익 금 121,544,718,623원 중 이 사건 토지의 양도로 인한 양도차익 금 120,882,079,873원은 구 법인세법(1988. 12. 26. 법률 제4020호로 개정되기 전의 것, 이하당초 구 법인세법'이라 한다) 제59조의3 제1항 제14호, 구 법인세법(위 법률로 개정된 것, 이하개정 구 법인세법'이라 한다) 부칙 제16조에 의하여 비과세되는 소득이라는 이유로 이를 공제한 나머지 662,638,750원만을 과세표준으로 하고 이에 세율 25%를 적용하여 산출한 세액 165,659,687원에서 공공사업 시행자인 ㅇㅇ시에게 위 토지 중 일부를 양도함에 따라 구 조세감면규제법(1989. 12. 30. 법률 제4165호로 개정된 것, 이하구 조감법'이라 한다) 제60조 제1항 단서에 의하여 면제되는 세액 65,904,813원을 공제한 금 99,754,874원을 1990년도 귀속분 특별부가세로 신고・납부하였다.", "(2) 이에 피고는 이 사건 토지의 양도로 인한 양도차익에 대하여 구 조감법 제59조 제5호, 부칙 제5조 제1항에 의하여 특별부가세의 50%에 상당하는 세액만 감면된다고 보고, 원고의 1990 사업연도 토지의 양도차익 금 121,544,718,623원에서 보유기간 동안의 도매물가상승액 14,555,298,780원을 공제한(이는 1994. 12. 22. 법률 제4804호로 개정되기 전의 구 법인세법 제59조의2 제3항 제3호의 규정에 따른 것임) 금 106,989,419,843원을 과세표준으로 하고 이에 세율 25%를 적용하여 별지 1990년도 귀속분 특별부가세액계산서 경정란 ⑤항 기재와 같이 세액 26,747,354,960원을 산출한 뒤, 위 세액에서 위 사업지구 외의 토지 등을 양도함으로써 발생한 양도차익에 대하여 산출한 세액인 위 금 165,659,687원을 공제한 나머지 세액 26,581,695,273원(이 사건 토지를 양도함으로써 발생한 양도차익에 대하여 산출된 세액) 중 50%(구 조감법 제59조 제5호에 의하여 감면되는 부분)인 금 13,290,847,636원과 위 토지 중 일부를 ㅇㅇ시에 양도함에 따라 면제되는 금 65,904,813원을 위 산출세액 26,747,354,960원에서 각 공제한 차감세액 13,390,602,511원에 과소신고 가산세 금 5,316,339,055원(＝과소신고 과세표준액 26,581,695,273원×20/100), 무납부 가산세 금 7,158,450,537원(＝미달 납부액 13,290,847,637원×730일×4/10,000＋13,290,847,637원×822일×3/10,000, 730일은 1993. 7. 1.부터 1995. 6. 30.까지 2년, 822일은 1991. 4. 1.부터 1993. 6. 30.까지의 각 일수임) 합계 금 12,474,789,592원을 더한 금 25,865,392,103원에서 위 자진납부세액 99,754,874원을 차감하여 1995. 7. 1. 원고에게 금 25,765,637,220원(10원 미만은 국고금단수계산법 제1조 제1항에 의하여 계산하지 아니함, 이하 같다)을 1990년도 귀속분 특별부가세로 부과하였다(이하1990년도 귀속분 부과처분'이라 한다).",다. 1991년도 귀속분 특별부가세 부과처분의 경위

(1) 원고는 1992. 3. 30. 피고에게 1991 사업연도(1991. 1. 1.〜1991. 12. 31.) 법인세 과세표준 및 세액을 신고할 때에 위 사업연도 중 토지의 양도로 인한 특별부가세 산정의 과세표준이 되는 양도차익 금 183,552,888,797원 중 이 사건 토지의 양도로 인한 양도차익 금 182,806,661,453원은 당초 구 법인세법 제59조의3 제1항 제14호, 개정 구 법인세법 부칙 제16조에 의하여 비과세되는 소득이라는 이유로 이를 공제한 나머지 746,227,344원만을 과세표준으로 하고 이에 세율 25%를 적용하여 산출한 세액 186,556,836원에서 원고가 1991. 11.경 ㅇㅇ댐 지구의 토지 2필지를 ㅇㅇ시에 양도함에 따라 발생한 양도차익 527,468,820원과 관련하여 구 조세감면규제법(1990. 12. 31. 법률 제4285호로 개정된 것) 제57조 제1항 후단, 부칙 제1조에 의하여 면제된 금 131,867,205원을 공제한 금 54,689,631원을 1991년도 귀속분 특별부가세로 신고・납부하였다.

(2) It shall be deemed that only the tax amount equivalent to 50% of the special surtax shall be reduced or exempted for the transfer marginal profit of this case pursuant to Article 59 subparagraph 5 of the former Act and Article 5 (1) of the Addenda, 1993, 52, 88, 16, 711, 325 won subtracted for the holding period from 16, 716, 97, 9740, 977, 979, 97, 97, 97, 97, 97, 97, 97, 97, 97, 97, 97, 97, 97, 97, 97, 97, 196, 97, 97, 97, 97, 196, 97, 196, 194, 596, 196, 294, 57, 97

(1) 원고는 1993. 3. 25. 피고에게 1992 사업연도(1992. 1. 1.〜1992. 12. 31.) 법인세 과세표준 및 세액을 신고할 때에 위 사업연도 중 토지의 양도로 인한 특별부가세 산정의 과세표준이 되는 양도차익 금 68,768,356,967원 중 이 사건 토지의 양도로 인한 양도차익 금 68,711,999,188원은 당초 구 법인세법 제59조의3 제1항 제14호, 개정 구 법인세법 부칙 제16조에 의하여 비과세되는 소득이라는 이유로 이를 공제한 나머지 56,357,779원만을 과세표준으로 하고 이에 세율 25%를 적용하여 산출한 세액 14,089,444원을 1992년도 귀속분 특별부가세로 신고・납부하였다.

(2) Accordingly, the defendant shall be deemed to have limited to 50% of special surtax for the transfer marginal profits of this case pursuant to Article 59 subparagraph 5 of the former Act and Article 5 (1) of the Addenda 1992; 68,768,356,90 won of wholesale goods for the holding period from 12,40,234,00 won shall be deducted from 5,513,656,46,46,467 won which shall be deducted from 50,970 won for the transfer marginal profits of land for which the transfer contract was cancelled after the above return, 50,970 won which shall be 50,97, 369, 467, 369, 467 won which shall be deducted from 965, 97, 369, 465, 97, 97, 467, 97, 97, 196

(1) 원고는 1994. 3. 30. 피고에게 1993 사업연도(1993. 1. 1.〜1993. 12. 31.) 법인세 과세표준 및 세액을 신고할 때에 위 사업연도 중 토지의 양도로 인한 특별부가세 산정의 과세표준이 되는 양도차익 금 57,675,932,355원 중 이 사건 토지의 양도로 인한 양도차익 금 55,981,187,044원은 구 조감법 제59조 제5호, 부칙 제5조 제1항에 의하여 특별부가세의 50%에 상당하는 세액만 감면된다고 보고, 위 양도차익 금 57,675,932,355원을 과세표준으로 하고 이에 세율 25%를 적용하여 세액 14,418,983,088원을 산출한 다음 위 산출세액에서 소정의 감면세액 7,410,026,156원을 공제한 나머지 금 7,008,956,932원을 1993년도 귀속분 특별부가세로 신고・납부하였다.

(2) On September 30, 1994, the Plaintiff calculated KRW 55,981,187,04, which was incurred from the transfer of the instant land upon filing a revised tax base return for the business year of 1993, based on the following facts: (a) Article 59-3(1)14 of the former Corporate Tax Act; and (b) Article 16 of the Addenda of the amended Corporate Tax Act (amended by Act No. 5971, Mar. 6, 193; (c) Article 59 subparag. 5 of the former Act and Article 5(1) of the Addenda of the former Corporate Tax Act (amended by Act No. 455,981,187,044 as non-taxable income; and (d) Article 5(1) of the Addenda of the former Corporate Tax Act (amended by Act No. 42386, Mar. 6, 1993; and (d) Article 6307,680,327,307,3800-7,40.

"(3) Accordingly, the defendant's transfer margin accruing from the transfer of the land of this case to the plaintiff on November 9, 1994 shall be exempted from the tax amount equivalent to 50% of the special surtax pursuant to Article 59 subparagraph 5 of the former Adjustment Act and Article 5 (1) of the Addenda. Thus, the plaintiff rejected the plaintiff's application for refund on the ground that the initial report made by the plaintiff is justifiable (hereinafter "the rejection disposition of correction of this case").

(a) Relevant statutes;

(1) Amendment of the Act relating to reduction and exemption of special surtax on income accruing from the transfer of land created by industrial base development project

(A) Article 59-3(1)14 of the former Corporate Tax Act (amended by Act No. 1060, Jan. 1, 1989; hereinafter referred to as the “amended by Act No. 1965; hereinafter referred to as the “amended by Act No. 1965; hereinafter referred to as the “Special Surtax”) provides for the first time of transfer of land, etc. created by the project implementer designated under the amended by Act No. 15 of the Industrial Sites and Development Act. The amended by Act No. 1964; hereinafter referred to as the “Special Surtax No. 16; hereinafter referred to as the “Special Surtax No. 1”) provides for the exemption of 50/100 of the amount of the special surtax; hereinafter referred to as the “income accruing from the transfer of land, etc. created by the project implementer designated by the provisions of the amended by Act No. 15 of the Industrial Sites and Development Act; hereinafter referred to as the “Special Surtax No. 16”). The amended by Act newly established the amended by Act No. 9.

(E) Despite the above amendment of the Act, there was no express provision under which the amended former Corporate Tax Act would amend or abolish the non-taxation transitional provisions.

(2) Details of the legislation pertaining to the revised tax base return

Article 45(1) of the Framework Act on National Taxes (amended by Act No. 4810 of Dec. 22, 1994) provides that "a person who has filed a tax base return within the statutory due date of return may, if any omission or error exists in the descriptions thereof, file a revised tax base return within the period specified in the following subparagraphs." In the case of corporate tax and value-added tax under subparagraph 1, "6 months after the statutory due date of return expires (in the case of preliminary return, three months after the due date of return)" and Paragraph (2) of the same Article provides that "in the case of corporate tax and value-added tax, six months after the statutory due date of return expires."

(1) The plaintiff's assertion

(A) In the case of the Industrial Base Development Corporation (the Plaintiff’s telegraph transfer) established under the Special Act, which aims to create and transfer an industrial base, the benefits under the tax-exempt provisions of the former Corporate Tax Act, which is the object of non-taxation from the time of the Plaintiff’s commencement of the land development project, are the acquisition right already determined at the time of the Plaintiff’s commencement of the land development project. The former Corporate Tax Act, which applied the former Corporate Tax Act instead of the former Corporate Tax Act, was amended by the amendment of the former Act, but the non-taxation transitional provisions of the former Corporate Tax Act, which are established under the former Corporate Tax Act, still effective despite the amendment of the former Act, is interpreted to have not been enacted or amended. If the special surtax on the transfer of land created by the Plaintiff is interpreted to have been recognized by the former Act, it shall be interpreted to have been unconstitutional because it infringes the Plaintiff’s above acquisition right.

(B) Unless otherwise, the non-taxable transitional provisions stipulate that the special surtax shall not be applied even if transferred after January 1, 1989 to a parcel of land designated on or before December 31, 198, and that the special surtax shall not be applied even if transferred after January 1, 1989, and thus, the special surtax shall be applied preferentially in accordance with the special law priority principle.

(C) Furthermore, Article 5(3) of the former Act provides that the former Corporate Tax Act, which was imposed or will be imposed pursuant to the provisions of Section c. of the Corporate Tax Act, at the time of the enforcement of this Act, shall be governed by the previous provision. Since Article 5(3) of the Addenda applies to the tax obligation established after the amendment of the previous Act, which is favorable to the taxpayer in order to protect the taxpayer’s right to vested interests or trust, the transfer of the instant land does not apply the first principle of the provision on reduction and exemption of the Act, a new corporation.

(D) Therefore, the main portion of each disposition imposing the special surtax and the disposition rejecting the correction thereof are unlawful.

(2) Determination

(A) Whether the interpretation of the special surtax as an acceptance of the special surtax infringes on the vested right

In a case where a tax law was revised disadvantageous to a taxpayer, there is a case where the previous provisions are applied in favor of a taxpayer for the purpose of protecting the taxpayer's right to acquire tax or trust based on the transitional provisions such as Article 5 (3) of the Addenda of the former Enforcement Decree of the Tax Reduction and Exemption Act. However, even if the previous provisions, which had been effective at the time of the act of cause before the establishment of the tax liability, provide for the tax exemption, exemption, or postponement of tax based on the act of cause, even in a case where the tax liability had already been established for a limited period in the future, it shall not be deemed as merely just expectation, and it shall not be deemed as a substitute for the right to acquire tax, and therefore, it shall not be deemed that the previous provisions do not provide for the purport that the tax exemption transitional provisions, which are the previous provisions, should be protected within a certain period, even if they meet the future taxation requirements (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 201Du3719, May 29, 200).

Therefore, the Plaintiff’s benefits under the provisions of the Corporate Tax Act cannot be deemed as the right of acquisition already acquired at the time when the Plaintiff started a project to create the instant land, and thus, even if it is interpreted as a recognition of special surtax on the transfer margin of the instant land under the amended former Enforcement Decree, it cannot be deemed as a retroactive legislation that infringes the Plaintiff’s vested right, and thus, the Plaintiff’s assertion on this part is without merit.

(B) Whether the effect of non-taxation transitional provisions remains

In light of the motive and circumstance leading up to the amendment of the former Act and the fact that the transitional provisions of the former Act are not the purpose of recognizing the right to enjoy, as seen above, the amendment of the former Corporate Tax Act to delete the corporate tax exemption provisions and to establish the exemption and reduction provisions of the Corporate Tax Act, instead of newly establishing the exemption and reduction provisions of the former Corporate Tax Act by the amendment of the former Act, and to delete the exemption and reduction provisions of the Corporate Tax Act instead of newly establishing the exemption and exemption provisions of the former Act, even if the non-taxation transitional provisions are not deleted at the same time, it would be interpreted that the failure to establish the supplementary provisions of the former Act to the same effect as the non-taxation transitional provisions would lose the effect of the non-taxation transitional provisions, and Article 1 and Article 5(3) of the Addenda of the former Act to the effect that Article 1 and 5(3) of the former Enforcement Decree of the former Act were not applied to the land that was made before January 1, 190, which was the enforcement date of the former Act, that is, the first provision of the former Corporate Tax Act that was enforced after the transfer from January 19, 198.

(C) Therefore, the main tax of each disposition imposing the special surtax and the disposition rejecting the correction thereof are all lawful.

C. Determination on the portion on additional surtax

(1) Additional tax in general

Under the tax law, where a taxpayer violates various obligations, such as a return and tax payment, without justifiable grounds, in order to facilitate the exercise of the right to impose taxes and the realization of a tax claim, penalty taxes are imposed in accordance with administrative sanctions as prescribed by the individual tax law, and, in principle, imposed if the requirements for imposing penalty taxes are met, which are the occurrence of a breach of duty. The taxpayer’s intent or negligence is not considered: Provided, That where a taxpayer is not unaware of his/her duty or where it is unreasonable for him/her to expect the fulfillment of his/her duty, or where there are justifiable grounds for not being attributable to his/her failure to perform his/her duty, it may not be imposed (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 9Du3324, Sept. 14, 201).

(2) Facts of recognition

다음 사실은 당사자 사이에 다툼이 없거나, 앞서 든 증거들, 갑 제14호증의 1 내지 3, 갑 제15호증의 1, 2, 갑 제16호증의 1 내지 3, 갑 제17호증의 각 기재와 환송 전후의 당심 증인 김ㅇㅇ, 환송 후 당심 증인 이ㅇㅇ의 각 증언에 변론의 전취지를 종합하여 인정할 수 있다.

(A) The Plaintiff transferred the instant land before December 31, 198, and reported the special surtax with the transfer margin exempted from the special surtax under the provisions of the Corporate Tax Act, and paid only the special surtax on the transfer margin accruing from the transfer of land outside the said project district. However, the Plaintiff, a public corporation, the Korea National Housing Corporation, the Korea Housing Corporation, the Korea Agricultural Corporation, and the Korea Land Development Corporation established under the special Act pursuant to the provisions of Article 59-3(1)15 and 18 of the former Corporate Tax Act, is exempt from the special surtax on income accruing from the transfer of land, etc. while the Plaintiff, a public corporation established under the Korea Water Resources Corporation Act, which is a special law, was unfairly exempted from the special surtax on income accruing from the transfer of land in an area designated under the former Industrial Base Development Promotion Act, so the Plaintiff appears to have no need to impose the special surtax on the Minister of Construction and Transportation (the Director General in charge), who is the competent department at the time of July 14, 1988.

(B) However, the amendment bill of the former Corporate Tax Act, which was prepared in 1988, contains the same contents as the provision of the Corporate Tax Act that is unfavorable to the Plaintiff, and accordingly, the Plaintiff recommended that working-level officers explain the Plaintiff’s position and reality directly to the person in charge of the relevant departments, such as the Ministry of Construction and Re-Gyeongwon, etc., and maintain the non-taxation provisions of the Corporate Tax Act as before and after that, in the actual process of legislation, the Plaintiff’s recommendation and position were accepted in the process of legislation, and the Corporate Tax Act was enacted as a compromise, and as regards the land within the district designated under the former Industrial Base Development Promotion Act, it was amended to have the non-taxation provisions that impose 1

(C) Accordingly, on March 1989, the Plaintiff reported and paid the transfer margin accruing from the transfer of the instant land at the time of reporting the tax base and tax amount of the special surtax reverted to the year 1988, as non-taxation provisions of the Corporate Tax Act and non-taxation transitional provisions.

(라) 그런데 위에서 본 바와 같이 그 후 1989. 12. 30. 구 조감법의 개정시 조감법 감면규정이 신설되면서 법인세법 감면규정은 삭제되었으나 비과세 경과규정은 삭제되지 않았고 더욱이 구 조감법 부칙 제5조 제3항에 이 법 시행 당시 종전의 소득세법, 법인세법 또는 이 법의 규정에 의하여 부과하였거나 부과할 양도소득세 또는 특별부가세에 관하여는 종전의 규정에 의한다. 고 규정하고 있었기 때문에, 원고의 대표자와 이 사건 업무 담당자인 김ㅇㅇ(원고 공사 세무과 소속)은 이 사건 토지를 1990. 1. 1. 이후에 양도함으로써 발생하는 양도차익에 대하여도 종전과 같이 비과세 경과규정과 법인세법 비과세규정이 그대로 적용되어 특별부가세가 비과세되는 것으로 이해하고 있었을 뿐만 아니라 그들이 세법을 전문으로 하는 ㅇㅇ회계법인으로부터 위 비과세 경과규정에 의하여 이 사건 토지를 1990. 1. 1. 이후에 양도하는 경우에도 법인세법 비과세규정 및 구 조감법 부칙 제5조의 규정에 따라 당연히 특별부가세가 면제된다는 자문과 함께 그와 같은 내용으로 세무조정을 받았다.

(E) Accordingly, on March 30, 1991 and March 30, 1992, the Plaintiff reported the tax base and tax amount of the special surtax belonging to the year 1990 and March 30, 1992, and deemed that transfer margin from the transfer of the land of this case is non-taxable (the Plaintiff stated that transfer margin from the transfer of the land of this case is non-taxable under Article 16 of the former Corporate Tax Act amended to the specification of income subject to non-taxation of the special surtax on the land of this case among the tax settlement statements attached to each of the above declarations) was reported as the tax base of the special surtax, and only reported and paid the tax amount calculated accordingly. The Defendant did not inform the Plaintiff of any demand or written analysis as to the above return and payment as to the return and payment of the special surtax prior to the disposition of attribution for the

"(바) 한편, 원고는 1992. 3. 10.경 ㅇㅇ지방국세청장으로부터 원고가 신고 및 납부한 1988년도부터 1990년도까지 3년간 귀속분 법인세에 대한 서면심사를 위하여 필요한 부동산 보유 명세서, 대손상각 명세서(이상 1988년도 귀속분에만 해당), 시산표상 토지 감소 금액과 특별부가세 계산시 취득가액과의 차액 명세 및 사유서, 전기손익 수정이익과 손실 명세서(이상 1989년도 및 1990년도 귀속분에만 해당), 건물 금액 감소 내역 및 특별부가세 과세표준 계산명세(비과세 등 해당시 근거 명시), 사업비 및 일반관리비 중 수선비(수익적 지출) 명세(이상 위 3개년도 귀속분 모두에 해당) 등의 자료를 제출하라는 요구를 받고, 곧바로 위 김ㅇㅇ으로 하여금 피고 소속 조사 담당 세무공무원을 만나 세무신고가 잘못된 것이 무엇인지, 요청자료가 무엇인지 등에 대하여 문의하는 한편 이를 해명하는 등으로 여러 차례 접촉을 하도록 하였고, 그 과정에서 위 김ㅇㅇ은 위 세무공무원으로부터 위 법인세 신고와 관련하여 잘못된 부분이 일부 지급이자, 자본적 지출액 중 감가상각비 한도초과금액을 각 손금에 산입한 것이고 위 자료 제출 요구도 이 부분에 관한 것임을 확인받았을 뿐 이 사건 토지의 양도차익을 법인세법 비과세규정과 비과세 경과규정에 따라 비과세로 신고한 것이 잘못되었다는 지적을 받은 바가 없었다. 이에 따라 원고는 1992. 3. 30.에 1991년도 귀속분 법인세 과세표준 및 세액 신고시 종전과 마찬가지로 이 사건 토지의 양도차익에 대하여는 비과세로 신고하는 한편 그 다음날인 1992. 3. 31.에는 위 세무공무원이 서면으로 요구한 자료들을 ㅇㅇ지방국세청에 제출하였는데, ㅇㅇㅇ세무서장(경정 전 피고)은 위 자료들을 토대로 서면분석을 한 뒤 1992. 4.경 원고에게 앞서 위 김ㅇㅇ에게 확인한 바와 같이 원고가 제출한 법인세 과세표준 및 세액 신고서와 부속명세서 및 보정서류에 법인세 산정시 비업무용 부동산 관련 지급이자(1988년도 귀속분에만 해당), 자본적 지출액 중 감가상각비 한도초과금액(위 3개년도 귀속분 모두에 해당)을 손금에 산입한 문제점이 있음을 지적하면서 수정신고를 하도록 촉구하는 내용의 법인세서면분석검토결과안내를 보냈고, 이에 따라 원고는 ㅇㅇㅇ세무서장이 지적한 사항들을 수용하여 1992. 4. 23. ㅇㅇㅇ세무서에88-90 사업연도 법인세 수정신고 납부'서를 제출한 후 235,565,081원의 세금을 추가로 신고하고 225,007,940원을 자진 납부하였다.",(사) 위 김ㅇㅇ이 ㅇㅇ지방국세청장으로부터 자료제출 요구를 받고 위 세무공무원을 만나 위와 같이 그 배경 및 이유를 확인하는 과정에서는 물론 ㅇㅇㅇ세무서장이 원고에게 보낸 위 법인세서면분석검토결과안내에도 원고가 이미 신고 및 납부한 위 3개년도 귀속분 특별부가세와 관련하여 이 사건 토지의 양도차익을 비과세소득으로 신고한 것이 잘못된 것이라거나 특별부가세의 50%만이 감면될 뿐 비과세가 아니라는 취지의 지적은 전혀 없어서 원고는 비과세 경과규정에 의하여 이 사건 토지의 양도차익에 대한 특별부가세가 비과세되는 것이 정당하고 과세관청도 이를 당연히 받아들인 것으로 확신하기에 이르렀고, 그래서 1993. 3. 25. 1992년도 귀속분 특별부가세 신고 및 납부시에도 비과세 경과규정에 따라 이 사건 토지의 양도차익을 비과세로 신고하였다.

(아) 그 후 1993. 5.경 ㅇㅇㅇ세무서장은 당초 구 법인세법, 개정 구 법인세법, 구 조감법의 각 비과세규정 및 감면규정에 대하여 국세청의 유권해석상 논란이 있다면서 기존 4년간 원고의 법인세 신고 내용을 다시 조사한 결과 관련 법규의 해석상 문제가 있다는 판단하에 일단 신고 금액이 가장 적은 1992년도 귀속분 특별부가세에 대하여 감사원의 유권해석을 받아 보자는 취지에서 1993. 10. 1. 특별부가세를 50%만 감면하는 내용으로 이 사건 1992년도 귀속분 부과처분만을 하고 1990년도 및 1991년도 각 귀속분 특별부가세 부분에 대하여는 부과처분을 보류하였다.

(i) On November 11, 1993, the plaintiff filed a request with the Board of Audit and Inspection for revocation of the above disposition on the ground that the special surtax on the land of this case is exempt from 100% under the provisions of the former Corporate Tax Act, the amended former Corporate Tax Act, and the former Reduction and Inspection Act. Notwithstanding the provisions of Article 46 (3) of the Board of Audit and Inspection Act, the Board of Audit and Inspection, which stipulates that the special surtax on the land of this case shall be determined within three months from the date on which the claim was accepted, without immediately making a decision on the interpretation of the above laws and regulations, did not immediately make a decision on the next day until the police officer in the year 1995, and the completion of the statute of limitations was imminent, the defendant imposed each disposition on the above premise that the special surtax on each of the reverted special surtax in the year 190 and 191 is exempt from 50%.

(3) Determination

"위에서 인정한 법인세법 개정시 비과세 경과규정을 두게 된 경위 및 배경, 위에서 인정한 바와 같이 구 조감법 개정시 조감법 감면규정이 신설되면서 법인세법 감면규정은 삭제되었으나 비과세 경과규정은 삭제되지 아니하였고 구 조감법 부칙 제5조 제3항과 같은 내용의 경과 규정을 둠으로써 이 사건 토지의 양도차익이 종전과 마찬가지로 비과세 소득인 것으로 이해할 상당한 여지가 있었고 원고가 ㅇㅇ회계법인으로부터 같은 취지로 자문 및 세무조정을 받고서 1990년도 및 1991년도 귀속분 양도차익에 대한 특별부가세를 비과세로 신고하기에 이른 점(환송판결이비과세 경과규정은 장래 과세요건을 충족하는 경우에도 일정한 기간 내에는 특별히 비과세한다는 취지로 규정되어 있지 않다.'고 판단하기 전에는 비과세 경과규정의 의미를 정확하게 해석하기가 매우 어려워서 환송 전 당심 판결도 위 비과세 경과규정과 구 조감법 부칙 제5조 제3항의 규정의 해석상 이 사건 토지의 양도차익이 비과세 소득인 것으로 판단하였을 정도이다.), 피고가 이 사건 1992년도 귀속분 부과처분을 하기 전까지, 심지어 1988년도부터 1990년도까지 3년간 귀속분 법인세에 대한 서면조사를 위하여 원고에게 자료제출을 요구할 때나 그 조사 결과를 통지할 때에도 원고의 위 비과세 신고가 잘못되었다는 취지의 지적을 한 바가 전혀 없었기 때문에 원고는 과세관청도 이를 당연히 받아들인 것으로 확신하기에 이르러 1992년도 귀속분 특별부가세 또한 비과세로 신고하기에 이른 점, 피고가 위 관련 법규의 해석상 논란이 있음을 안 뒤에도 일단 이 사건 1992년도 귀속분 부과처분만을 하고 1990년도 및 1991년도 각 귀속분 부과처분을 보류하였던 이유는 당시까지도 과연 이 사건 토지의 양도차익이 비과세 소득인지 아니면 50% 감면 대상인지에 대하여 피고가 확고한 해석을 내리지 못하였기 때문인 점, 그런데 조세시효의 완성이 임박할 때까지 원고의 심사청구에 대한 감사원의 결정이 내려지지 않자 피고가 뒤늦게 1995. 7. 1.에 가서야 이 사건 1990년도 및 1991년도 각 부과처분을 하게 된 점, 만일 피고가 1990년도 및 1991년도 귀속분 각 부과처분을 1995. 7. 1.이 아닌 1993. 10. 1.에 위 1992년도 귀속분 부과처분과 함께 하였더라면 원고가 1993. 10. 2.부터 1995. 7. 1.까지 638일에 해당하는 무납부 가산세가 부과되지 아니하였을 터인데, 피고가 위와 같은 이유로 위 2개년도 귀속분 부과처분을 뒤늦게 하는 바람에 원고가 위 일수에 해당하는 무납부 가산세를 부담하게 된다면 이는 원고에게 지나치게 가혹한 것으로 보이는 점, 피고가 위 관련 법규의 해석을 문제삼기 전에 원고가 스스로 위 관련 법규를 자기에게 불리하게 해석하여 특별부가세를 신고 납부한다는 것은 기대하기 어렵고, 따라서 원고가 위 신고 납부를 하지 않았다는 이유로 이 사건 가산세를 부과한다는 것이 원고에게 가혹한 것으로 보이는 점(원고가 피고의 1992년도 귀속분 부과처분 이후인 1994. 3. 30.에 1993년 귀속분 특별부가세 과세표준 및 세액을 신고할 때에는 이 사건 토지의 양도차익을 비과세 소득이 아닌 50% 감면 대상으로 보고 신고 및 납부한 점에 비추어 보면 더욱 그러하다.) 등에 비추어 보면, 원고가 이 사건 토지의 양도차익에 대한 위 특별부가세 50%의 신고・납부 의무를 알지 못한 것이 무리가 아니었고 나아가 그 의무의 이행을 원고에게 기대하는 것이 무리였다고 할 것이어서 원고에게 위 의무 해태를 탓할 수 없는 정당한 사유가 있었다고 해석된다(원고가 관련 법규의 부지나 착오로 납세 의무를 알지 못한 데 그치므로 이 사건 가산세가 정당하다는 피고의 주장은 받아들이지 않는다).",따라서 이 사건 1990년도, 1991년도, 1992년도 각 부과처분 중 위 특별부가세 50%를 신고 및 납부하지 않았다는 이유로 부과된 가산세(과소신고 가산세 및 무납부 가산세) 부분은 위법하다.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the defendant's imposition disposition of the corporate tax amount of KRW 9,524,645,370 for the year 1992, the amount of the penalty tax of KRW 3,174,831,792 for the year 1990, and the amount of the penalty tax of KRW 12,474,789,592 for the year 1990, and the amount of KRW 37,934,628,740 for the corporate tax of KRW 37,934,628,318,246 for the year 191, among the imposition disposition of KRW 9,524,645,370 for the corporate tax amount of KRW 3,174,628,740 for the corporate tax amount of KRW 17,628,318,